Posted by oldwarrior on 7/12/2015 8:39:00 PM (view original):
back in the early days of the 12 man classes there wasn't a cap limit of only cash for 6 openings.  You would get cash for 12 openings.
Plus back in even earlier days there was a full 100% carryover, not the 25% rule in place today.

That's is true and that happened for a while. However, the next change that was imposed was limiting the amount of scholarship money to 6 open schollies, even though you could recruit 12 in a class. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think this lasted long, before dropping the hammer and imposing the 6 class size limit.

Its gaming the system. Its not realistic and will probably be addressed next update.

I went many years in this game without ever using a superclass strategy. 

I won zero national titles. I came close a few times, several final fours, a couple of NT championship games - but even in those, I was almost always the underdog who managed to get to a game he probably shouldn't have been in at all. My teams weren't the most talented, usually by a decent margin.

Sometimes the other talented teams were coached by the great coaches of the game, people who probably have a lot more recruiting skills than I do and so that's why they were there. So be it. But sometimes, I was being outgunned by superclasses.

I wondered what I could do if I tried it. With no national titles to my name, I decided to give it a shot. Now I have two superclass teams, one at DI and one at DII.

Several seasons later, I STILL have zero national titles.

At DI, for me personally, the glass ceiling appears too thick to ever crack the first round of the NT, much less win a title. We'll have to see, but that's what I suspect.

At DII I hold out hope this strategy will pay off where others haven't, but again, we'll have to see.

I've also adapted the superclass strategy to an alternating level with two of my other teams, one at DIII and one at DII. I like it because it results in the cash benefits of six open scholarships, I don't have to recruit every single season, and it keeps my team competitive on a fairly continuous basis.

I haven't seen anyone else use this strategy yet (it may have happened, but I haven't seen it). It's not as strong as the traditional superclass, but it has its merits (as I mentioned above). Perhaps others don't use it because it doesn't offer a significant advantage over other class sizes. Still, I like it.

The bottom line on my thoughts on superclasses: I'd like to win a national title.  I'm going to use whatever strategy gives me the best shot at getting there. I think superclasses may do that, so I'm going to use that strategy, at least for now. If that makes me less creative or less respected, that's fine by me. Once I have my national title (assuming it ever does happen), then I'll consider doing something more creative or something that will be more respected.

If by the "alternate superclass strategy," you mean 6-0-6-0, I'm using it at Shenandoah in D3 Smith. This strategy is not nearly as overpowered as the regular superclass strategy (you almost always play a team with more upperclassmen than you in the title game, since you never have more than six), and the down years are not nearly as down (I usually make the NT in the 0 seniors year, and I even made a surprise run to the title game once with no seniors and 6 freshmen). And not recruiting every season is definitely pretty awesome. I don't have quite the pick of the litter I expected in recruiting, because all it takes is two people fighting me for recruits for me to not be able to beat them both (assuming they can sign their other guys cheaply), but it is nice recruiting with plenty of cash.

I still haven't won a title with this strategy (this is my only team doing it, and we've been doing it for about 12 seasons), although I've lost in the title game twice and had three teams bomb out in the tournament as 1-seeds to teams we'd already beaten that season. We're usually a title threat every other year and a solid NT team every other year. But the alternate season recruiting has been a lifesaver. Probably the only reason I haven't downsized to six teams. It's definitely a lot different than my other teams, and I wouldn't want to do it with every team I have, but it's been fun to try, it makes the team a little more low-maintenance, and I don't feel like I'm gaming the system. 

Bunkerbuster won quite a few titles at d3 in Iba I recall and maybe in Rupp at d3 (he came close if he didn't succeed) using the alternating super class method. His team in Rupp was piedmont. I think his team in Iba was in Texas (I was at d2 at the time, so I don't recall). He quit playing the game, so is have to dig some I see what he accomplished.

I understand the less respect for super classes, but I think it's overblown. For example, if someone is in a top conference we don't seem to say "well they just got all that extra recruiting money they should win the title!" Perhaps we should have less respect for the coaches who are in top conferences at d3 and d2, and getting all that extra cash?

It's more impressive when a coach wins with balanced classes. But until the rules change, I won't fault a coach for trying the super class method. But, It also fails often as well....

for folks who think there should be a change, what is your proposed specific change?

Carry over recruiting $$ should be eliminated

- Those who have to use this tactic, waive the right to be considered A great coach. If you want to be taken seriously, do it without having to "load up." Is this the only way you can compete? Do you need to have an advantage? If having 12 Seniors in the same class were legal, would you do that instead? Legal? - yes. A bit Nutless? - yes

Posted by mullycj on 7/15/2015 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Carry over recruiting $$ should be eliminated

Carry-over POSTSEASON $$ should be eliminated or curtailed (25% like with recruiting cash?) for teams with no returning seniors.

Posted by fd343ny on 7/15/2015 6:40:00 AM (view original):
for folks who think there should be a change, what is your proposed specific change?

See above - I put that in my breakdown on page 2 as well.

Yeah. Cash has to go. Six schollies is already 30k or 15k, so it's an advantage already. Carryover money should be cut down. I think the rule should be you need at least 1 of each, six in a class being the max. I am asking people : in reality, is there such a thing as a team without freshmen or at least one?

Posted by brianxavier on 7/14/2015 11:42:00 PM (view original):
Bunkerbuster won quite a few titles at d3 in Iba I recall and maybe in Rupp at d3 (he came close if he didn't succeed) using the alternating super class method. His team in Rupp was piedmont. I think his team in Iba was in Texas (I was at d2 at the time, so I don't recall). He quit playing the game, so is have to dig some I see what he accomplished.

I understand the less respect for super classes, but I think it's overblown. For example, if someone is in a top conference we don't seem to say "well they just got all that extra recruiting money they should win the title!" Perhaps we should have less respect for the coaches who are in top conferences at d3 and d2, and getting all that extra cash?

It's more impressive when a coach wins with balanced classes. But until the rules change, I won't fault a coach for trying the super class method. But, It also fails often as well....

i won't fault them either - and as mentioned i really don't have an issue with people doing it. its just that you shouldn't expect to be considered one of the greats, even in your world, if that's how you get there. its a good way to learn and a unique challenge, and all that. really even winning 1 title isn't that much diminished. but if someone had 10 superclass titles, vs some other guy with 10 regular titles, i would definitely not consider them the same league. i agree it might be overblown in the less competitive levels of the game, but i don't think its true in the higher levels, i think the appropriate level of respect is given there.

i know it was an offhand comparison but the major conference thing is a really poor comparison. the increased local competition of exceptional d2/d3 conferences far outweighs the value of the money you get. i would *much* rather be in a good d2 conference for that world, someone who ranks 1-3 regularly, than to be in an all time great d2 conference, in terms of just winning titles. obviously there is more to the game than winning titles. but generally that extra 5k you get on top of the 5k a decently good conference gets, that is just taking the edge off of how much harder recruiting is because you have 3 great coaches right next door who you can't just bully around. 

the regional differences in d1 recruiting however, those people do definitely put short-term weight on the value of titles (oh, that guy has no local competition, etc). its not really considered long term maybe because its so subjective and near impossible to track. its really a huge factor, get lucky with your neighbors, and it can *easily* double your chance of winning a title, vs having pain in the *** neighbors ;) and recruit gen is huge too. i really wish the staff would take steps to reduce the luck of the draw as far as all of that is concerned.

Posted by fd343ny on 7/15/2015 6:40:00 AM (view original):
for folks who think there should be a change, what is your proposed specific change?

one main reason IMO that superclassing is popular in HD and not real life is that in real life, consistency matters quite a bit - missing the NT horribly because you just had 12 guys graduate, that is not remotely acceptable. in HD you'll just drop from an a+ to a b+ with basically no other consequence - and then when you recruit, you are already back to an a+, so there is basically no consequence. i do agree rolling over all that money makes a difference, too. 

anyway, to me, the fix would be to not take such an instant gratification approach to jobs, resumes, and prestige. the d1 change to consider 10 season resumes makes sense (although poorly executed). i think d2/d3 prestige and resumes should take longer term approaches, like d1 does. 

i would also totally oppose the elimination of carryover, while i would totally support the elimination of the special case 100% carryover for 0 senior teams. make it 25% for everyone. that solves much of the problem.

the other way superclasses fail in reality is human egos - you cant have 12 seniors in real life, the 5 guys who start would be fine but the rest would be ******. i don't support trying to make HD more life like in that way - that would suck, and i have to imagine WIS would find a way to screw it up where it sucks even more in practice than it does in theory.

the simple, easy change - likely to have few if any unforeseen consequences - is to get rid of the special 100% carryover for teams with no openings.  Apply the normal 25% and a major advantage of superclass goes away.  I would do ONLY that and see what happens.  Other changes, could cause other problems.